Hands Off Our Land: latest

The Telegraph's Hands Off Our Land campaign is calling for the Coalition to
look again at proposed changes to planning laws which risk undermining the
safeguards that have protected the countryside for almost 70 years. Follow
the latest developments here.

Property developers could be free to build 'what they like, when they like'

SIR – The countryside and cities are interdependent: they give Britain its physical character and benefit from clear separation – socially, economically and aesthetically. A green belt helps to contain the city and protect the countryside.

Cities are this country's economic engines and the centre of creativity. People move to cities to find jobs and earn more. Ninety per cent of us live in cities, so the form of our urban settlements must be sustainable. This means compact, polycentric cities.

The National Trust has invited Daily Telegraph readers to nominate the unsung heroes who help preserve Britain's green spaces for a new award scheme.

The Octavia Hill awards have been launched to celebrate the life and legacy of the Trust’s founder, who led campaigns to save green spaces such as Parliament Hill Fields and Hampstead Heath in London in Victorian Britain.

They aim to recognise those who have made a real difference to the environment, whether by saving an allotment from development or being the driving force behind the establishment of community woodland.

The winners will be announced next June to mark the centenary of Hill’s death in 1912.

The Government is also planning to cut the length of time it takes for planning applications to be decided, and remove a raft of protections for listed buildings.

Last night campaigners said the change “could enable developers to ride roughshod over the countryside and the views of local people”.

Under the plans, the Environment agency, Natural England and English Heritage will have a new “remit” to promote “sustainable development”. The Government said this would mean that the agencies would have to “contribute to a competitive business environment”.

I am standing in a patch of nettles on the Isle of Grain. If you’ve never been here – and most people haven’t – it is the furthermost extremity of the Thames estuary, part of the North Kent marshes. Dickens is said to have been inspired by its desolation; the misty wildness features in the opening of Great Expectations.

Today, the view is not obviously propitious. The tall chimney of a power station rises behind me. Cranes like immense praying mantises tower over Thamesport, a container terminal from which freight trains and lorries begin their journeys, past the dumpy tanks of the National Grid’s liquid gas storage facility, the largest of its kind in Europe.

The Prince suggested that without proper controls towns and cities across the world could encroach on rural areas “on a vast scale”.

He added that more thought for the future was needed to avoid “mass urbanisation”.

Speaking to former students from the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, he said: “The greatest challenge is mass urbanisation on a vast scale, without any proper thought to what the future will hold.”

David Cameron is facing questions over his purchase of land neighbouring his Oxfordshire home from the chief executive of one of Britain’s biggest public relations and lobbying companies. Saturday 18th November

t was disclosed on Tuesday that the Prime Minister paid almost £140,000 for the land, which was owned by Lord Chadlington, the brother of John Gummer, the former Conservative cabinet minister who is now a peer.

Lord Chadlington has long-standing links to Mr Cameron and donated £10,000 to him personally to fund his 2005 run for the Conservative leadership. He has donated more than £60,000 to the party since then. His company has donated a further £30,000 in the past three years.

Downing Street officials said the land had been independently valued at the price paid by Mr Cameron and that there was no conflict of interest. The deal was cleared at the highest level by Whitehall officials, they said.

Green issues – or so the conventional wisdom goes – fall off the public and political agenda when the economy turns down. In fact that is no longer true: environmental concerns have become so entrenched in Britons’ values that they remain remarkably robust in bad times as well as good.

Even so, it is rare for one actually to come under an ever brighter spotlight as the economic outlook darkens – as is now happening with the Government’s planning reforms.

Residents have accused Viscount De L’Isle, the owner of Penshurst Place in Kent and a descendant of Sir Philip Sidney, the Elizabethan poet and soldier, of behaving in a “feudal” manner after putting two acres of green space up for sale.

The land is intended for six affordable homes but villagers claim that it would “forever alter” the character of the village.

“Exceptional and historic villages cannot be newly created and it is a heavy responsibility to irreversibly alter one,” a group of campaigners has said.

Clive Aslet travels to Ledbury, to find out about one of Britain's small market towns resisting the onslaught of the supermarkets:

Tesco appears not content with its small corner of Ledbury, applying to build a new mammoth superstore – 33,000sq ft – on an industrial site on the edge of town. The planning committee of Herefordshire Council was due to decide on its fate today. But in a tactical victory for Ledbury’s well-organised anti-superstore campaigners, the Goliath has been felled. Yesterday, Tesco withdrew its application, to digest some sharp criticisms from local planners.

This triumph, however, could turn out to be hollow. No sooner had one leviathan made its exit from the stage than another entered. With the Tesco application withdrawn, Sainsbury’s put in its own bid to build a monster store on the opposite side of the road. Locals believe that both megaliths could yet get the go-ahead.

The countryside is in danger of becoming ‘saturated’ by semi-detached housing and bungalows, Lord Lloyd-Webber has warned.

He said the countryside was in danger of becoming a victim to the same uncontrolled planning which has ruined southern Ireland “one of the most beautiful countries on Earth”.

“The English Countryside is pretty much at saturation point now in development terms. If you want a reasonable tourism you have to have something for tourists to see – to attract them. They are not going to want to to see a whole load of semi-detached buildings or bungalows – which is what you get in Ireland,” he said.

Sir Simon Jenkins, the organisation’s chairman, said the “fingerprints” of rich builders were all over the reforms, which campaigners say will give developers carte blanche to build on large parts of rural England.

The Coalition’s controversial planning reforms fail to fully consider the beauty of the built environment, according to a charity set up by the Prince of Wales to conserve Britain’s architectural heritage.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph Hank Dittmar, Chief Executive of the Prince’s Foundation, recommends “day surgery” to improve the Government’s current proposals.

Prince Charles has demonstrated how he would like future towns and villages to look by building his own development, Poundbury in Dorset, that promotes traditional architecture. Photo: JOHN ROBERTSON

Prince William is to launch a campaign to protect fields and parkland from developers on behalf of a charity which has fiercely criticised the Government’s controversial planning reforms.

The 29-year-old Duke of Cambridge will urge families to defend the green, open spaces they most cherish in a film to be broadcast on Tuesday, the day after the deadline for submissions on the Coalition's new guidelines.

Prince William will spearhead a campaign to protect fields from developers

The Coalition’s controversial plans to reform planning laws threaten the green belt, according to one of the country’s leading planning lawyers.

Throughout the ongoing row over reforming England’s planning rules, ministers have insisted that the ring of countryside around towns and villages will be protected. However John Hobson QC said the proposals actually weakened protection of green belt land.

Greg Clark, the planning minister, insisted that the green belt would be protected

With the formal consultation period on the Draft National Planning Policy Framework closing next Monday, it is not too late for Daily Telegraph readers to make their views known to the Government. Our mailbag has shown that few issues in recent years have touched quite such a raw nerve and it is easy to see why.

The restrictions on rural development enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 have served the country well. The Government’s desire to replace them with an overarching “presumption in favour of sustainable development” threatens to become a charter for developers to ride roughshod over local opinion, to the detriment of our matchless countryside.

Prof David Metz, a former chief scientist at the Department for Transport, said that plans to let developers build more homes in rural areas meant extra roads would have to be constructed to serve them.

This does matter because every word in there is justiciable and we need to get the words right,” he said. “The pretence that this is a document that pledges to 'let rip’ is not actually possible to sustain when you read it."

Bob Neill, the Local Government and Planning minister, told The Daily Telegraph that “by the end of the year we will be in a very different place”.

The comments are the first time that the Government has admitted there will be far reaching changes to the draft National Planning Policy Framework, which distils 1,300 pages of planning guidance into as few as 52.

Doubtless Mr Maude relishes his reputation for straight-talking but we hardly think that his contribution has added a great deal of intellectual rigour to the debate and suggests the consultation is a sham. By contrast, Mr Cameron's idea to free up disused public sector brownfield land for development on a "build now, pay later" basis sounds like a practical measure to bring about the increase in house-building that he thinks will help to kick-start the economy.

As the Conservative Party makes camp, David Cameron should note how existing planning laws have rejuvenated the ailing northern city.

Not long ago was pretty depressing, with an uninspiring city centre surrounded by vast tracts of decaying industry and housing. As with cities all over Britain, there was an exodus: by 1990, fewer than 1,000 people remained in the centre.

Two decades on, the place has been transformed. People have flocked back and the city-centre population has shot up to over 15,000. The proportion of Castlefield – the area where stood the original Roman fort of Mamucium, which was named after a “breast-shaped hill” – that has been given over to housing has increased at least fivefold since 1988 and more than 5,000 new jobs have been created. Long-term unemployment is falling fast, and Manchester ranks in the top 15 cities worldwide for attracting investment.

Ministers “know nothing” about planning and have to be “told the facts” by developers because they have “never been in the real world”, according to a Tory donor and property developer.

Mike Slade, the chief executive of Helical Bar and chairman of the Conservative Property Forum, described Grant Shapps, the housing minister, as a “kid” who did not understand how local authorities worked. Mr Slade, 56, added that he was “always horrified” by the naivety of ministers, who needed help from the property industry to understand “the rights and wrongs of what they are trying to do”.

Silence is not always golden. Many MPs are increasingly disturbed by the Government’s planning reforms – but, as yet, they have remained relatively mute. Having signed up for plans they were told would stimulate growth, they now face increasing protests from their core supporters.

Part of the problem is that MPs were not given the complete picture at the right time. The planning framework was not even available for inspection until after the localism Bill had passed the House of Commons – Sir Humphrey would be proud, but many MPs feel justifiably aggrieved.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Mary Creagh, the shadow environment secretary, set out a number of changes that Labour wanted to see made to the controversial draft National Planning Policy Framework.

The party now joins the National Trust, Countryside Alliance and the Women’s Institute in demanding changes to the draft new planning rules. This newspaper has also launched a campaign urging ministers to rethink the proposals.

Planning officials have cited the Government's proposed changes to the planning system in a series of contentious decisions even though the new guidelines have yet to come into force.

Approval has been granted to developments that will see meadows and green fields making way for new housing, office buildings and industrial lorry parks. Housing developers have also begun using the reforms to appeal planning refusals.

Thousands of house prices could fall by a third or more if Coalition Government proposals to change planning rules in favour of developers become law, knocking hundreds of thousands of pounds off some of the most desirable homes in the green belt.

Many estate agents are reluctant to discuss this potential domestic disaster because they are linked to building and development companies who stand to gain if given a free hand to brick over the fields and meadows that make England such a green and pleasant land.

I do hope the National Trust does not join a generalised campaign which, however exciting, can overlook the complexity of the issue. They should also be careful with not being associated with a general attack on the planning system, when everyone knows the problems associated with it anyway.

James O’Shaughnessy, head of policy at 10 Downing St, attended an invitation-only meeting with senior members of the property and construction industry at the offices of a lobbying firm in central London in June.

The news will put further pressure on ministers to explain how the draft National Planning Policy Framework was altered so much that one of its original authors disowned it and said they no longer placed a high value on the Government.

There are other elements that need to change. Surely the default “yes” to all developments where there is no up-to-date local plan is not balanced. We need sensible transition arrangements to manage the risk of speculative development proposals. And is it really sensible to scrap the “brownfield first” policy that considers previously developed land before the consideration of green field sites?

We believe the presumption is an important part of the new planning guidance.. Where businesses are seeking to relocate or expand they should be able to do so. And many of our young people find it increasingly difficult to take their first steps to home ownership. This situation is unacceptable.

We are concerned that increased decision-making by local planning authorities, without proper strategic oversight, will not apply sufficiently robust scrutiny in flood risk areas. Building developments in high flood risk areas will make flood insurance harder to access and, if available, more expensive, possibly prohibitively so.

A property that cannot get insurance is likely to be uninhabitable and unsellable. This will put further pressure on Britain’s already high demand for housing, and hit the recovery of the house-building sector.

The group that slow-capped Tony Blair into submission is calling on its 208,000 members to write to their MPs and organise public meetings to ensure planning laws do not allow development to damage countryside.

The group, which includes Simon Wolfson, the chief executive of Next, Sir Stuart Rose, the former Marks & Spencer chairman, and Ron Dennis, the executive chairman of McLaren, claim that the Government "must tackle head–on the sluggish pace and disproportionate costs of planning".

Ruth Bond, the chairman of the National Federation of Women's Institutes, said the WI will not give up until they are sure robust protection for the countryside is in place. She said:

It is not a call to arms, but a call to the pen, a call to discussion and conversation around where you live.

Zac Goldsmith, who advised Mr Cameron on environmental issues while in opposition, said the Government was delivering "contradictory messages" over the changes to planning rules, which risked handing a "blank cheque" to developers.

While Mary Portas, Mr Cameron's adviser on high street retailing, has claimed that the changes would weaken the protection of town centres against out-of-town developments.

Major sporting bodies, including the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Lawn Tennis Association and the Rugby Football Union, fear that new planning rules will remove crucial protection for playing fields and open spaces.

Simon Marsh, the acting head of sustainable development at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, today disowns the policy he helped devise, saying it is now balanced too much in favour of development. He complains that his original proposals were warped and changed by those in the Government “who don’t place a high value on the environment”.

The result, he says in an article in today’s Daily Telegraph, is that the draft National Planning Policy Framework “puts the economy first” and “marks a profound shift in emphasis for planning policy”.

"What is our planning system for? That is the question the Government is grappling with through its reform of England’s planning rules – and the answer it has come up with is proving to be a lot more controversial than it expected.

"With my background in planning and nature conservation, I was asked to help to write the new reforms. But I certainly cannot support the proposals on the table. The essence of good planning is meeting the needs of people, the economy and the environment – and these reforms are threatening that approach. "

"In the House of Commons on Wednesday, David Cameron defended his Government’s proposed shake-up of the planning laws to introduce a “presumed consent in favour of sustainable development”. The Prime Minister made several points in support of a policy that has caused deep disquiet in the Conservative Party’s shire heartlands – disquiet to which the Government so far has appeared either indifferent or dismissive.

To begin with, Mr Cameron said that the current system is overly bureaucratic and slow. The new draft National Planning Policy Framework reduces more than 1,000 pages of regulation and guidance to a more manageable 50 or so. That is a good thing and in keeping with the Coalition’s promise to reduce red tape.

But the Prime Minister’s other arguments were far from convincing. He observed that today’s first-time buyer with no support from their family is aged 37, adding: “We need to build more houses, to help more young people to get on the housing ladder.”"

Adrian Penfold, head of planning at British Land, one of Britain’s biggest property developers, said that councils could be left powerless to stop development unless they update their local planning guidelines.

He said: “If you don’t, it will be the National Planning Policy Framework that determines what happens in your area. I know how complicated these plans are to produce but if you haven’t got one you’re a sitting duck.”

Researchers at the independent House of Commons library said that the Government's legal presumption in favour of sustainable development will apply "even within the green belt".

Ministers have insisted that the framework will provide clear protections for the green belt, which makes up 13 per cent of land in England.

But a report from the library's respected researchers notes that the section of the proposed changes setting out the legal presumption makes “no mention of the green belt”, and contains only a narrow exception for sites protected by the Birds and Habitats directives.

John Rhodes, who helped write the Draft National Planning Policy Framework, said the new rules would inevitably mean “more development, not less” despite ministers’ promises to give residents more powers.

The comments by Mr Rhodes, a leading planning consultant, will raise questions over Greg Clark, the planning minister's, claims about the framework and their “localism” agenda.

The British Property Federation, defendedthe email but it will add to growing fears that the minister has become too close to the property industry and is working alongside developers to force through reforms, which establish a "presumption in favour of sustainable development.

In the email, Ghislaine Trehearne, the group's policy officer, disclosed the minister's fears that Mr Cameron may back down on the reforms following public opposition.

Greg Clark and his officials are … deeply concerned at the level of opposition that has been provoked by The National Trust and are worried that Number 10 might be spooked by this mobilisation of middle England and do the sort of U-turn that they did on the forestry sell-off. She wrote:

We have been firing off letters to the press, and have sent a letter to No 10 supported by the leading developers in the commercial property industry.

David Hinde, of the No to Wolds windfarms campaign group, said there are applications for 196 wind turbines in the Yorkshire Wolds area and more are more likely to go through if the planning laws are reformed in favour of development.

However the local council insisted turbines would not be allowed to ruin the landscape.

Documents obtained by the Sunday Telegraph showed local authorities have been asked by the government's Planning Inspectorate in recent months to amend their local plans so that they provide more land for homes, allocate more rural land for development and even give up Green Belt for construction projects.

The Government continue to insist that communities will have more power over planning applications because they can comment on new 'neighbourhood plans'.

The YouGov poll of more than 2,000 people found that few people were aware of the government's proposals to alter the planning laws dramatically, and even fewer had the inclination to address planning issues in their local area.

It also found most people think new developments should include space for allotments to grow food.

An investigation by the Sunday Times found that senior figures in the house building industry were involved in drafting the planning reforms, including an executive from Taylor Wimpey, causing further outrage.

He said that the only way to protect the countryside is to ensure that towns, cities and brownfield sites are well developed.

Here is the rub. Britain's population is rising fast. Millions more homes will be needed. If they are not to be built on green land, the Government will have to make cities and towns far more attractive.

The building projects opposed by ministers behind the policy, which contains a "presumption in favour of sustainable development", include new housing and businesses premises and a memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales.

Greg Clark, the planning minister who is leading the reforms, Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary and Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, have all opposed housing development in the past.

When people refuse to pull down a cathedral for the sake of the coal beneath it, or insist on retaining a Georgian city when it could be rebuilt as a business park, they create obstacles to economic growth. Most forms of love are obstacles to economic growth. Thank God for obstacles to economic growth.

Mike Clarke, chief executive of the RSPB, said charities will not back down until the core policy, in favour of development over the countryside, is changed.

"The Minister told us that the Government's position on sustainable development has not changed but the policy presumption in his proposals does not reflect this. The policies also ignore the Government's own economic appraisal of the natural environment contained in the National Ecosystems Assessment. Far from being a constraint, our environmental assets are vital to economic well-being.

“I welcome Mr Clark’s invitation to help clarify these issues. But the Government as a whole has to recognise the importance of the environment in its economic thinking, and unambiguous guidance has to be given to local authorities and planning inspectors.

“I’m very pleased that Greg Clark has been so open with us and has invited us to help him redraft these proposals so they deliver for both the economy and the environment, and we will call on all available resources to ensure this process is successful.”

What on earth is this Government playing at with the relaxation of planning guidance? Is it looking for a cast-iron guarantee of losing the next election? Gaining a clutch of developers' votes hardly compensates for the loss of those of the whole rural community.

This is really a presumption in favour of development. If that’s what the government intends then they shouldn't be dressing it up as “sustainable”. The reforms haven't been thought through properly and could cause chaos if they go through as currently drafted.

George Monbiot, the commentator, tweets: "The govt's proposed new #planning laws mean the reassertion of old power against democracy."

Dame Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust, says:

It’s not a case of a simple rewrite of a few words – the general tone of the framework is fundamentally wrong.

Dame Fiona Reynolds, head of the National Trust

Monday 5 September:

Britain’s last remaining ancient woodland is at risk due to the proposals, The Daily Telegraph reports. The Woodland Trust claims the draft proposals leave a loophole which will allow local authorities to prioritise building over trees and woods over 400 years old. The wording states that historic trees could be chopped down where “development in that location clearly outweighs the loss.” Sue Holden, chief executive of the trust, says: “No development should bring about the loss of ancient woods and trees. Simple.” George Osborne and Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, come out fighting. In an interview with the Financial Times, they say planning is acting as a brake to growth and that reform cannot be optional. They say:

No one should underestimate our determination to win this battle.

Woodland at Taverham in Norfolk

Sunday 4 September:

Bill Bryson, the author, who is also president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, joins those speaking out against the proposals, saying the he is “deeply worried” to learn that environmental laws are regarded as “red tape”. Naomi Luhde-Thompson, the planning officer at Friends of the Earth, says: “It is clear that the government does not want green space designations used to prevent development in open countryside.” Dominic Lawson, writing in the Sunday Times, makes the point that development must be encouraged but no one wants it near their country home. He says: "Those on the verge of retirement have every reason to be horrified on purely financial grounds, if the consequence of more homes being built has the effect of reducing prices overall. For this generation, more than any other, their homes are their pensions." David Cameron, the Prime Minister, says planning reform will be a central part of a growth plan to be announced later in the autumn:

My order is to think even more boldly about what we can do to put the turbo-boosters on the British economy. Nothing should be taboo. If that means taking on the lobby groups then we will do it.

Britain is in the grip of a housing crisis, experts say (ALAMY)

Saturday 3 September:

The Daily Telegraph reports campaigners’ claims that the number of wind turbines will treble to more than 4,500 if the plans go through. Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, says: “It would be very foolish to distort the planning process as a quick fix for a broken energy policy.” Greg Clark, the planning minister, is pushed into saying he is willing to discuss details with the groups during an interview on the BBC’s Today programme but insists that there will be no u-turn. The National Trust prepares to ask all its 3.8 million members to sign a petition to “completely rethink” the rules. If 100,000 people sign, a Commons emergency debate is likely. Sir Roy Strong, the historian, writes in The Telegraph:

The countryside is fundamental to the idea of England. National identity is formed in the imagination and the recent proposals to open up our green and pleasant land to rapid and unthought-through development is an attack on our very identity.

The essential point is to preserve prime agricultural land. Britain needs every acre that will grow crops and support livestock. We all accept the need for extra housing, but let's put it on land that is not productive.

The edge of Chipping Norton in the Cotswolds (ALAMY)

Thursday 1 September:

With the sides of the debate entrenched and increasingly hostile, The Daily Telegraph launches its campaign to stop ministers pushing the proposals through after 23 former presidents of the Royal Town Planning Institute write to the newspaper to call for a calm discussion of the plans and for them not to be introduced with undue “haste”.

The lead story reports that ministers have been accused of trying to rush through the biggest planning reforms since the Second World War. The newspaper's leader column writes: "The Business Secretary is about to discover that there are a great many semihysterics in this country."

Greg Clark, the planning minister, engages in bruising debate on BBC’s Newsnight with National Trust chairman, Sir Simon Jenkins, as the argument moves solidly into the mainstream. Martin Willey (and others), former President of the Royal Town Planning Institute:

The unintended consequences of this haste are greater confusion, uncertainty for the development industry and anxiety for communities.

The Telegraph's campaign launch on September 1

Wednesday 31 August:

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, describes campaigners against the proposals as “semi-hysterical” in an interview with the Times. Dr Cable says the changes are needed to create new homes, in particular social housing, in which there is a “chronic, chronic shortage”. Alice Thomson, the commentator, writing in The Times, says planning is the "most volatile" issue affecting the rural population. She writes that the Government "may have a few wealthy landowners, planning lawyers and property developers on its side, but it has managed to unite a formidable group against its plans... Greg Clark, the Planning Minister, doesn't appear to care. In fact, he almost seems to relish the fight." Dr Cable, describing opponents of the new guidelines, says they are:

Semi-hysterical.

The Green Belt has been protected since the '50s (ALAMY)

Tuesday 30 August

Planners are told to start approving developments on the basis of the controversial new planning guidelines, despite ministers offering to reword the legislation before it comes into force. This does not become public knowledge until The Telegraph's story of September 7. Official inspectors, who have the power to approve local developments, get the fresh guidance by the Planning Inspectoratewhich tells them to start abiding by the new draft planning framework, which campaigners fear could lead to unchecked development in rural areas, because it represents the Government's “direction of travel”. Nick Walker, a reader of The Telegraph from Whalley, Lancashire, writes to highlight the example of his village, in the rural Ribble Valley, which is "under attack from developers who want to build some 1,000 houses around the village, all on greenfield sites":

The Localism Bill has been exposed as a sham which encourages "local" decisions on planning only if they are decisions in favour of more development. The Ribble Valley is a safe Tory seat, but I would remind Mr Clark that the valley has punished previous Tory administrations by voting its MP out.

The Government insists the Green Belt will be protected

Monday 29 August:

The Campaign for Better Transport claims drivers are facing the threat of more motorway gridlock because of the proposed changes. They say the plans will prioritise business parks near motorway junctions rather than in town centres which could lead to an increase in the number of traffic jams. The organisation estimates that each development would generate an extra 8,000 car journeys a day. Stephen Joseph, chief executive of The Campaign for Better Transport, says:

Far from helping economic growth, our research shows that the draft planning framework could actually end up damaging the economy.

This is a carefully choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups. This is more about a small number of interest groups trying to justify their own existence, going out of their way by picking a fight with Government.

Get Britain Building? Absolutely. But let's proceed by producing well-planned, well-connected new settlements, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past with identical new estates plonked miles from anywhere. Time is not on our side.

The RSPB fears encroachment on bird habitats (ALAMY)

Monday 25 July, 2011:

With Parliament in recess, the Government releases its new proposals. Initially, they raise few ripples, meriting just one passing mention in the construction and property section of a national newspaper the following day. However, conservation and environmental campaign groups quickly begin to react, most notably the National Trust. The Campaign to Protect Rural England also acts, mobilising its followers through Twitter, a pattern which develops.

Experts note England’s planning guidance has been reduced from over 1,000 pages of regulation to just 52. One developer, interviewed by the BBC News at Ten, is described as “eyeing up the unspoilt Midlands waterway that he plans to turn into a marina like a fox outside a chicken coop”. Dame Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust, says:

This finally sounds the death knell to the principle established in the 1940s that the planning system should be used to protect what is most special in the landscape.